% 

Copy #£ 




Glass. 



Book 



1* 



t -y [Rep rinted from tl' e A. L . A. Curt fere nee, 1 906. ] 



SUBJECT HEADINGS IN DICTIONARY CATALOGS* 

By William Warner Bishop, Reference Librarian of Princeton University 



"M" O library worthy of the name fails to 
give its readers some sort of clue or 
guide to the contents of its collections. Its 
first purpose is, generally speaking, to pro- 
vide an inventory of its books as they stand 
on the shelves (the shelf-list), then to give 
an inventory by authors (the author catalog), 
and last, perhaps because most difficult, comes 
the index, or guide, or key to the subject mat- 
ter of the books. Most librarians are fairly 
well satisfied with their shelf-lists and author 
catalogs if they are reasonably up to date and 
accurate. But few librarians and fewer 
scholars who use libraries are thoroughly 
well satisfied with their subject catalogs. 
The principles of author entry are indeed not 
all determined. Few matters engage our in- 
terest more keenly than the long-expected 
agreement between our association and the 
British association in this particular. But 
the comparative simplicity of the rules now in 
force, and the substantial progress already 
made toward uniform and sane entries en- 
courage us to think that we are pretty well 
off on the side of author cataloging. Our 
methods of indicating to readers what the 
library possesses on the subjects of interest 
to them are by no means so simple or so 
uniform. It may not be out of place, then, 
to discuss some of the important problems 
of subject cataloging. 

It must be laid down as the prime essential 
of all subject catalog work that the end 
in view is the rapid and easy consultation of 
the catalog by the student who uses it. I 
say "student, - ' because no one spends much 
time on a subject catalog who is not inter- 
ested in some subject to the extent of want- 
ing to see what books the library has on that 

*In this paper I have limited myself strictly to 
my individual opinion on the matters treated, and 
have in no way endeavored to set forth the practice 
or theories of the Princeton University Library with 
regard to subject cataloging. I wish to make this 
statement, not because of any lack of sympathy with 
the practice of the library in which I am at work, 
but simply in order that my personal views may not 
be held to be an expression of Princeton's policy. 



topic. Now he must not be discouraged at 
the outset by any formidable and intricate 
machine which only an expert can use. The 
catalog must be so constructed that he can 
discover easily and quickly what he wants to 
know. This seems a simple requisite. Yet 
practice shows that it is one of the most dif- 
ficult ends to secure. No amount of ingenuity 
can make a subject catalog which shall be 
absolutely without flaw in the matter of uni- 
formity ; no one can always consult it without 
effort. The student who knows at least a 
little of his subject and related subjects must 
then be the normal "public" of a subject cat- 
alog. But his road must be made straight 
and the rough places must be made plain for 
him. Ease of consultation, then, may be laid 
down as a fundamental basis for work. 

Rapidity and ease of consultation will be 
secured only by most careful planning. There 
are certain decisions which must be made 
by every librarian beginning or revising 
a catalog of subjects. Once taken, these 
decisions must be adhered to, while a change 
once decided on must be carried out root 
and branch. Too many of our subject cata- 
logs of all sorts are medleys of opposing 
decisions of different catalogers, all made 
in good faith and with the best of motives. 
As compared with an author catalog there 
are few means of checking divergences. 
Careful planning, then, is half the battle. 
It matters little, from one point of view, 
what the decision is. The important thing is 
to have a conscious policy and to stick to it. 
The larger the library the greater is the 
need for uniformity in the matter of subject 
headings. The small library need not bother 
itself greatly about principles of subject entry. 
When its books are all easily accessible, its 
readers and the library staff alike will rely 
on classification and current bibliography 
rather than on catalogs. When you can go 
straight to the shelves and pull down in a 
few minutes all the books in the library hav- 
ing any possible bearing on the thing you 
want to know, you don't care much for a set 



WITH THE COMPLEMENTS OF THE AUTHOR 



of cards in a tray. But the library which 
confidently expects to become large must 
needs beware. The day when the librarian 
or reference librarian with his ordinary 
tools can answer all ordinary questions will 
pass suddenly, and then, if the subject cata- 
log work has been badly or inadequately done, 
comes confusion and trouble. Particularly is 
this true of the college libraries. Their cata- 
logs are likely to get out of hand easily, and 
they are liable to periods of sudden inflation 
by gift, and the most careful attention is 
needed lest the entries under subjects be- 
come the butt of students and faculty, the 
despair of the reference librarian, and the tor- 
ment of the cataloger. 

One of the greatest obstacles to successful 
work in the field we are considering is the 
unfortunate fact that fashions in nomen- 
clature change rapidly. Such headings as 
Mental Philosophy, Natural Philosophy, 
Fluxions, and scores of others current not 
so long since would hardly help the student 
of to-day. But more puzzling to him than 
these odd and old-fashioned forms will be 
the vague sort of "catch-all" headings that 
so frequently get into catalogs which do not 
have to be subjected to the test of cold 
print. "Practical Piety" in one card catalog 
I have seen was made to cover all modern 
sociological and economic works. The one 
essential for securing continuity and correct- 
ness in subject work is definition of the 
subject heading combined with sharp direc- 
tions as to its use in the library's practice. 
It is not enough to determine on a heading. 
It must in all doubtful cases be defined most 
carefully and the definition preserved. The 
manner of interpreting the definition in prac- 
tice must also be indicated. In other words, 
a (card) list of subject headings in use with 
all needed notes should be kept in every cat- 
aloging room. The extent to which these 
notes should appear in the public catalog is 
a matter for individual judgment. 

In this paper there will be no discussion 
of the relative merits of classed, partially 
classed and dictionary catalogs of subjects. 
These matters have been long before us, and 
their respective claims are well understood. 
The dictionary catalog has — for good or ill 
— been generally chosen in our American 



libraries. Hence our study will be directed 
toward certain typical difficulties which are 
met with in actual work. 

Before taking these matters up in detail, 
let me call attention to one source of assist- 
ance and guidance which we too often over- 
look. Since the seventeenth century the 
makers of encyclopaedias have been working 
at this problem. Scores of excellent encyclo- 
paedias have been in constant use in our 
reference rooms — and even in our catalog- 
ing rooms — but have they been studied dili- 
gently as models for headings? We may be 
very sure that they have been studied by 
their makers with exactly our chief problem 
in mind ; and that is how to choose a cap- 
tion which shall in a single easily understood 
word or phrase express the topic to be treated 
so clearly and definitely that it may be found 
and comprehended at once. The good ency- 
clopaedias do not show the fatuous entries 
and references found in even our good cata- 
logs. There is doubtless a reason. I sus- 
pect it lies partly in the excellence of the 
editorial supervision for which publishers can 
afford to pay, and partly in the undoubted 
fact that each encyclopaedia is based on half 
a dozen, or perhaps half a hundred, prede- 
cessors, and thus the headings as well as the 
articles are in a continual state of revision. 
The fact that the headings are all in print 
in convenient form, and are easily seen and 
found, is also a great aid in producing uni- 
formity of editorial treatment. Still the fact 
remains for us to ponder. Encyclopaedias 
seem to present fewer difficulties in consulta- 
tion than subject catalogs, and are familiarly 
and easily used by many people to whom a 
card catalog is a bugbear. 

Everybody is agreed on the fundamental 
principle that in dictionary cataloging the 
"specific'' subject must be our norm. We 
want to get exactly the caption which fits 
our book and no other. Especially do we 
wish to avoid general headings for treatises 
covering a limited field. A man looking for 
a book on trees does not want to be sent to 
look through all the cards on botany, nor 
does the inquirer for information about Nel- 
son want to see all the cards on British 
naval history and biography. He wants what 
we have about Nelson. As I have said, 



• 






everybody admits this. The smallest pos- 
sible unit must be sought out and made the 
basis for the subject heading. 

But the library has also books — many 
thousands of books, probably — which do not 
deal with one small, particular topic. It has 
treatises on Botany and British naval he- 
roes. Hence there arises of necessity a set 
of subjects of a general nature, which are in 
effect identical with the large divisions of 
the classifications. We have general treat- 
ises on Philosophy, on Religion, on Sociology, 
on Philology, and so forth. And, further, we 
have general works on such topics as Physics, 
Electricity, Mathematics, Latin literature, 
Hydraulics, Political Science, Psychology, 
side by side with works of equal bulk and im- 
portance on divisions of those subjects, such 
as Heat, Alternating currents, Differential in- 
variants, Latin pastoral poetry, Canal locks, 
Proportional representation, the Sense of 
touch. There must be general headings, 
class headings, if you please, in your diction- 
ary catalog. The difficulty is to use them 
wisely. These general headings must never be 
used for anything but general treatises of an 
inclusive sort. They will be the same in a 
classed and in a dictionary catalog, and 
should be treated alike in both. Moreover, 
a first-rate dictionary catalog will use under 
these class headings — or headings common to 
both sorts of catalogs — a few of the simple 
and large subdivisions of classification, such as 
History, Essays and addresses, Outlines, syl- 
labi, etc. In doing this it will not violate 
the dictionary principle. 

But we should stop right here. Let us 
use the class headings when needed, but let 
everybody understand that they are strictly 
limited in their scope. Put it on the guide 
card so that all may see that "General works 
only are listed under this caption. For special 
treatises consult the cards with the heading 
of the particular subject wanted." An ex- 
ample should be given in each instance, and 
more than one, if necessary. In the case of 
the guide card for Chemistry there should be 
a statement that works on particular chemi- 
cal products and compounds are to be sought 
under their own names. The illustration 
might perhaps take such a form as this — "for 
example, treatises on Chloroketodimethyltet- 



rahydrobenzene will be found under that 
word." 

It should be said, further, that caution is 
necessary at this point. Because some head- 
ings must be the same in any sort of catalog, 
and because some which are definitely group 
headings have to be used as a practical mat- 
ter of common sense in a dictionary catalog, 
you will find catalogers continually revert- 
ing to these class headings. It's vastly easier 
to label a book Sociology than to pin its gen- 
erally elusive contents down to one particular 
phase of social inquiry. We all tend to 
move unconsciously along the lines of least 
resistance. We shall never get our catalog 
of specific headings without constant vigil- 
ance, constant self-criticism, and drastic revis- 
ion. We must have class headings so long 
as our libraries are not. composed wholly of 
theses for the doctorate. And we must avoid 
them as much as possible. 

There is a special form of class heading 
which bobs up serenely with exasperating 
frequency. I refer to the so-called "forms of 
literature," such as poetry, ballads, essays,, 
orations and fiction. Shall we leave these 
out of our subject catalogs? Many libraries 
do. Shall we say to the student looking for 
German ballads, "You'll find them all classi- 
fied in number so and so"? But then, you 
know, he won't. There are dozens of vol- 
umes of them in collections of one sort and 
another, for one thing. Shall we let our 
novels go without subject cards and depend 
on a special finding list 'of fiction? Shall we 
lump them all under Fiction in the subject 
catalog? Shall we subdivide fiction and the 
"forms" by language, or perhaps by nation- 
ality? Or shall we classify fiction in our 
subject catalog, and put historical novels with 
the history divisions to which they suppos- 
edly belong? These are burning questions 
with many libraries. Probably every one of 
them represented here has a policy already 
decided on and in force in this matter. Here 
I will content myself with saying that it is 
my observation that the form divisions in a 
subject catalog when thoroughly made and 
kept up to date are a great help in reference 
work. (And the reference work should be 
in close touch with the catalog work for 
their mutual good.) It is, moreover, a con- 



siderable advantage to carry out the principle 
that ever)- author card, generally speaking, 
should have a subject card matching it. In- 
cidentally I may remark that I have found 
a mild form of the classification of fiction a 
great help. I refer to such headings as U. S. 
History, Civil war, Fiction, which have sat- 
isfied many a lazy body who wished to take 
his history diluted and disguised. 

There are few librarians who will not fol- 
low us up to this point. We all know that 
we cannot wholly escape headings which are 
the same as the major divisions of any classi- 
fication, and most libraries make some sort 
of subject lists of their works of so-called 
pure literature. But when we come to those 
large subjects which from their very nature 
suggest a geographical subdivision we leave 
uniformity behind. There is hardly any such 
thing, for example, as a treatment of Mathe- 
matics, or Logic, by countries, although we 
do find works on Greek Mathematics. These 
are, however, incidental to a certain period 
in the development of the science, and not a 
proper regional division such as may well 
be demanded in the case of Agriculture, or 
Geology, or Architecture. The pure sciences, 
then, do not enter very largely into this prob- 
lem. But a very large proportion of the sub- 
jects about which books are written offer a 
double interest. They may be considered 
from the view-point of the region or country 
described, or from that of the subject treated. 
A work on the geology of Texas, for instance, 
may seem to belong to Texas, and to require 
the subheading Geology; or it may appear to 
have its chief interest for the geologist, in 
which case it goes under Geology, with the 
inevitable subhead Texas. This is all familiar 
enough. Mr. Cutter (Sec. 164) insisted that 
the only satisfactory solution of this problem 
was that of double subject entry. With this 
view I cannot agree. A consistent policy with 
regard to this class of subject headings which 
will rigorously enter under either the topic 
or the country is demanded in the interests 
alike of economy and of common sense. 
Whatever decision is taken, a reference must 
be made from the opposite form. Thus, if 
the library decides to enter under Geology. 
Texas, there should be a subject reference 
from Texas.Geology. Such a subject ref- 



erence is much better than duplication of 
hundreds of subject cards. 

But what shall the policy be? The prac- 
tice of our leading printed catalogs is ex- 
tremely varied. On the one hand we have a 
tendency to provide long lists of subheads 
under each country. This is the practice at 
least impliedly recommended in the Ameri- 
can Library Association's "List of subject 
headings" by the printing of the long list of 
subheads to be used under country and state. 
On the other hand, to cite but a single in- 
stance, the Subject Index to the British Mu- 
seum Printed Books (1881-1900) restricts 
vigorously the entry under the country or 
region, and allows but few subheads. Be- 
tween the two plans there is a great gulf 
fixed. One assumes that a reader thinks 
along geographical lines when he wants a 
book, and looks under Greece for a book on 
Greek Architecture or Mythology, or for a 
treatise on the Geology or Agriculture or 
Education of that country. Perhaps he does. 
The other presumes that a reader considers 
his subject first, and then runs down its 
geographical ramifications later. Is there any 
principle on which this matter may be de- 
cided? Must we always make special de- 
cisions? There is at least one principle which 
favors grouping by countries rather than by 
topics. It is generally held that the diction- 
ary catalog should supplement rather than 
copy the classification. Now the books will 
doubtless be classified on the shelves by sub- 
jects rather than by -country in these topics 
which admit of double treatment. Therefore 
if books treating of such topics as Educa- 
tion, Missions, Agriculture, Slavery, Archi- 
tecture, Painting, etc., from a regional or 
national point of view — as Central African 
Missions — and not covering the whole field, 
are entered under the country or region, the 
subject catalog will show more about those 
regions than the classification will at any one 
point. This seems to me the sole argument 
for making use of this form of entry. 

Now, on the contrary, I believe that the 
British Museum practice and that of the Li- 
brary of Congress are more nearly in line 
with the habit of readers and the view-point 
of the makers of books. If we leave out the 
historical sciences, the main interest is the 



topic and not the region. In the pure sci- 
ences we have already eliminated the regional 
or national principle. In the applied sciences 
and the arts, both useful and fine, we may 
safely do the same thing. These divisions 
are very extensive. I advocate, then, a de- 
liberate policy of restricting the entries under 
the country or region to those topics which 
have a strictly local interest, i.e., the field 
of the historical sciences, and such of the 
social sciences as depend for their value on 
local conditions. To be specific, I would not 
put a book on the geology of Texas under 
Texas, but under Geology with the subhead- 
ing Texas. I would limit the subheads under 
a country to those which seem absolutely 
necessary. For everything else which might 
be expected under country I would make a 
subject reference card. This may be begging 
the question. It may be abandoning the 
search for a guiding principle. But it seems 
to me that the habit of most readers and 
authors is a fair guide for us. After all it is 
for them that the catalog is made. 

One word before leaving this topic. At 
no other point of subject catalog work is 
definite adherence to a fixed rule more neces- 
sary than here. A decision once taken in 
this matter should be rigidly executed. If 
this is done, the people who use the catalog 
will quickly learn to follow the principle 
adopted and will in consequence consult the 
catalog with ease. 

If the practice of restricting the entries 
under subheads of countries or locality be 
followed, we at once encounter the difficulty 
of the so-called "national adjective." Having 
eliminated France.^rf, are we going to cut 
out French Art, Greek Mythology, Roman 
Roads? Certainly we must. We must say 
Art.France, Mytho]ogy,Greece, Roads.Rome, 
or we shall soon find ourselves in a maze 
of confusion. It will, however, be necessary, 
in ^ my opinion, to use the national or lin- 
guistic adjective with the literature or lan- 
guage of a country or region. We shall 
probably be obliged to say French language 
and French literature, since France.Law- 
guage and France.Literature do not necessa- 
rily express the same ideas. As in the case 
of France, so also in many other instances 
the national and linguistic areas are not 



identical. German language and German lit- 
erature, for example, are wider in their scope 
than the political boundaries of the present 
German Empire, and the same is true of the 
English language. The linguistic and na- 
tional areas are different in Switzerland, in 
India, and in many other regions. Another 
objection to the use of the national adjective 
is found in the fact that we have all sorts of 
corporations and institutions whose names 
begin with American, British, French, etc. 
Read the headings beginning with either 
"American" or "British" in the published cat- 
alogs made on the dictionary principle of 
any of our libraries, and see what a medley 
is produced by the mingling of names and 
topics. I hold that the national adjective 
should be eliminated from subject headings, 
save for the two linguistic usages mentioned, 
This will cause some trouble, for a great 
many people are accustomed to think of 
American Indians, British commerce, French 
porcelain, etc. But the practice will save 
trouble, too. It will reduce the number of 
places in which one must look for a topic 
(the chief drawback of Poole's Index), it 
will obviate much apparent confusion in the 
arrangement of headings, and it will intro- 
duce some system into alphabetical subject 
catalogs at a point where system is much 
needed. The practice of the encyclopaedias 
is against the extensive use of the national 
adjective.* 

It may be objected to this that we merely 
transfer our excessive use of subheadings 
from the country heading to the subject or 
topic heading. It may be urged that by this 
plan the subdivisions under topics become 
very unwieldy. In answer I would say that 
the subheads undoubtedly become more nu- 
merous under the topic, but that they belong 
there rationally, and there will be plenty left 
under the country. The person consulting the 
catalog is obliged, it is true, to run his eye 
over many guide cards, and perhaps over 
several trays to find his particular books. 
But that is far easier for him than going 
from one part of the catalog to another, look- 
ink now under France and now under Spain 
for a work on the mineralogy of the Pyrenees, 



*There are some exceptions, notably the most 
recent edition of Brockhaus. 



for instance. Again he remains certain, after 
looking at the subdivisions under Mineralogy, 
that he will not have to look also at the cards 
headed Pyrenees Mts. — he has all the cards 
before him for Mineralogy. We can't elim- 
inate subheadings from our alphabetical sub- 
ject catalog. At least, if we can, no one has 
arisen to show us how. If a separate guide 
card is used for each heading and subheading, 
we shall find the difficulty of consultation very 
greatly diminished. And with all the admit- 
ted difficulty of finding a small subdivision 
of a big topic, we still get it more quickly, 
I think, by this method than by the classed 
catalog with its alphabetical index. 

It will have occurred to those who have 
followed this discussion thus far that a good 
many subheadings under both country and 
subject might be avoided by the use of in- 
version. We might say, "Roads, Roman," 
"Architecture, Gothic," "Psychology, Social," 
etc., and everybody would understand what 
we mean. The use of inversion has its chief 
defense, it seems to me, in the fact that it 
keeps together related topics. It is certainly 
convenient to have "Psychology, Animal," 
"Psychology, Comparative," "Psychology, 
Morbid,'' "Psychology, Social'' in orderly se- 
quence and close together. But despite this 
convenience, as a matter of form of heading, 
the practice of inversion is to be regarded as 
fully as pernicious in the subject catalog as 
in the author catalog. The objections to it 
are patent and well known. There is one 
catalog which regularly and always inverts, 
which enters under an adjective form only 
in the rarest instances. I refer, as most 
of you will surmise, to the magnificent Index 
Catalogue of the Surgeon General's Library. 
No one will dispute the high authority of 
this catalog as a scientific product. It is 
the most remarkable thing of the kind ever 
done in this country. But I imagine that 
despite its example we may be more truly 
scientific if we set our faces squarely against 
inversion. The worst thing about inversion 
is the utter lack of certainty as to which 
several forms may be used. If in our author 
catalogs we have come to the point where 
we can write "Michigan. University," why 
should we not write "Psychology. Animals"? 
There is not time to elaborate in this paper 
the argument against inversion. We must 



be content to dismiss it with the single pro- 
viso that well established phrases beginning 
with an adjective such as Republican Party, 
Political Science, etc., need not be called in 
question either by those who would always in- 
vert to serve their convenience, or those who 
are steadfastly against the practice of inver- 
sion. The larger question whether the 
ordinary phrase, e.g., Comparative anatomy, 
Animal psychology, should not always be 
employed instead of some device where- 
by the noun remains in the first po- 
sition is well discussed by Mr. Cutter in 
his Rules. My own opinion is for the regu- 
lar use of the phrase in current use in the 
form in which it habitually occurs in titles, 
save in the numerous cases in which a caption 
with proper subhead better expresses the idea. 

There is one class of subjects which gives 
trouble alike to classifiers and catalogers. 
Wherever a classification or a catalog is sub- 
divided on a geographical basis, or wherever 
geographical headings are given, the fact 
stares us in the face that "geographical ex- 
pressions," to use Prince Mettemich's 
phrase, are by no means permanent or 
dependable. The map of the world has suf- 
fered startling changes since books began to 
be made. Certain difficulties which confront 
us in geographical headings deserve attention. 

Even the continents give trouble. The 
terms America and Asia are used very loosely 
in popular speech, and even in indexes of 
subjects. Does North America include Mex- 
ico and Central America ? Where does West- 
ern Asia leave off and Central Asia begin? 
Does the term America as a heading or sub- 
heading include both North and South Amer- 
ica? Shall we write America, North or 
North America? What do we mean by Cen- 
tral Africa? These are questions which 
have but to be asked to raise sharply the 
point that definition and consistent adherence 
to definition are essential in the geographical 
terms to be used. I say nothing of the for- 
midable adjective American, for I hope we 
may largely banish initial geographical ad- 
jectives from the catalog. But the official 
catalog of subjects should certainly contain 
very carefully planned directions as to the 
use of continental designations, as well as of 
the smaller divisions of geography. 

But troublesome as ill-defined geographical 



concepts may be, they are nothing in the way 
of difficulty compared to the name of regions 
which have ceased to represent present po- 
litical conditions. There are a number of 
•countries which no longer exist as states, 
whose political life as separate entities has 
ceased. A region such as Poland, for ex- 
ample, which has been absorbed by one or 
more countries offers a most perplexing prob- 
lem. The word Poland corresponds to noth- 
ing on the map or in official gazetteers, but 
it is still in everybody's mouth. Travellers 
■still use the old national name on title pages 
of descriptive works ; historians and others 
write on former or even present-day condi- 
tions. And yet in our larger libraries we have 
official documents and other works treating 
of this once independent state from the stand- 
point of Prussian, Austrian and Russian 
provinces. I do not believe that we can get 
around the difficulty by lumping everything 
tinder the popular name. Neither do I be- 
lieve that we can ignore it in the case of 
travel and descriptive works. (Of course I 
am not referring to books on Poland before 
the partition.) There are plenty of similar 
cases, although few with such complications. 
It seems to me that the common name must 
still be used where it is employed on title 
pages, and that the official regional designa- 
tion of the present day must be employed 
where needed because of either the title or 
the contents of the work. This will neces- 
sitate a lengthy "See also'' reference, a thing 
to be avoided wherever possible. 

Ancient and mediaeval states and countries 
with no continuing name or precise modern 
geographical equivalent give less difficulty. 
Their ancient names may safely be used. The 
trouble is, however, that both descriptive and 
historical works dealing wholly with present- 
day (or at least modern) conditions frequent- 
ly employ the ancient name in titles. In such 
cases the modern form of name should be 
regularly used as a heading. Such ancient 
regions as Pontus, Epirus, Dacia, Africa, 
Gaul, Granada (Kingdom) may well receive 
separate subject entry, but it will instantly be 
seen how much confusion would arise from 
using these headings for modern works deal- 
ing with present conditions. Take "Africa," 



for example. Properly used it means in an- 
tiquity the single Roman province erected on 
the ruins of the Carthaginian city-state, lim- 
ited in its extent to about the boundaries of 
modern Tunis. So used the term has a dis- 
tinct value. But a modern work on Tunis, or 
even a discussion of archaeological problems 
occurring in the limits of the ancient province 
should not receive the heading of Africa. 
There is, then, great need for care and a well- 
defined policy in these matters of ancient geo- 
graphical designations which have no precise 
modern equivalents. Somewhere a very care- 
ful working out of the proper limits of the 
subject heading adopted for such countries 
and regions must be accessible to the catalog- 
ing staff, and perhaps to the public. It will 
not do, for instance, to say merely, "Tunis — 
See also Africa (Roman province)"; "Africa 
(Roman province) — See also Tunis." These 
loose "See also" references are the refuge of 
careless catalogers. In their stead must be a 
careful explanatory note giving the dates and 
boundaries within which the heading is ap- 
plicable. 

It may be worth while to stop at this point 
for a word as to these "See also" references. 
It was a rule at some time in the dim and dis- 
tant past of cataloging to make "See also" 
references from each subject named on a 
title page to every other subject so named. 
All students of cataloging methods well know 
some of the ludicrous results of this rule. It 
is creditably reported that as a result of this 
rule rigidly applied such references as these 
were made and printed. "Brain, See also 
Cheek, Tumors of the ;" "Cheek, Tumors of 
the, See also Brain," because forsooth both 
subjects got into one of the long-winded 
titles of earlier days. Probably these "See 
also" references cannot be wholly eliminated 
from catalogs. It is a very good thing at 
times to have a student reminded of allied 
topics and similar headings. But the tendency 
to their abuse is so great that it would seem 
a better course to make carefully worded ex- 
planations rather than to multiply these refer- 
ences. And I believe we should not suffer 
greatly were they excluded entirely from the 
subject catalog. They frequently give the im- 



8 



pression — unjustly, of course — that the cat- 
aloger is either trying to show off his knowl- 
edge of subjects, or considers that the user of 
the catalog has none. 

To return to matters geographical. Few 
problems are more difficult as matters of ac- 
tual practice than the making of a perfectly 
clear arrangement in a card catalog of easily 
understood and intelligible headings for coun- 
tries or regions which have had a continuous 
written history from ancient to modern days. 
The most conspicuous of these are Egypt, 
Greece, Rome, and Syria. The boundaries of 
Egypt have been practically the same from 
antiquity to the present day. Hence we are 
not so much troubled by the question of the 
physical extent of the heading. But we are 
directly "up against" the question whether 
we shall say Egypt (Ancient), Egypt (Graeco- 
Roman), Egypt (Saracenic), Egypt (Turk- 
ish), Egypt (Modern), or something of this 
sort, or whether these headings should be 
used as second subheads following the recog- 
nized subdivisions under the country. For 
example, Taxation is a frequently employed 
subheading under country, and we happen 
to have a great mass of material on tax- 
ation in Egypt in many ages. Shall we 
write Egypt ( Ancient). Taxation, Egypt 
(Graeco-Roman). Taxation, etc., or Egypt. 
Taxation. (Ancient), Egypt.Taxation (Graeco- 
Roman) period, etc.? The second method 
keeps the country as the main heading and 
places the period last, and is therefore pref- 
erable, in my opinion. But in neither case 
can we get away from three alphabets in ar- 
rangement. The method advocated, namely, 
of keeping the period division last and consid- 
ering the topic as the more important matter, 
falls in with our ordinarily received method 
for modern states. Thus we generally find 
such headings as this: United States.Ta.ra- 
tion (Colonial period), rather than United 
States (Colonial period). Taxation. Which- 
ever method is adopted, whether we break up 
the country's history into certain well-defined 
periods and treat these as if they were sep- 
arate wholes, or whether we regard the coun- 
try in all its history as one and arrange topics 
under it with chronological divisions, the 
dates of the different periods will have to be 



worked out with care and recorded in the 
official list of headings. When this is done it 
will probably be found that the books seldom 
fit the dates previously arranged. What to do 
with overlapping books — books which fit into- 
no general scheme — is a sore problem in 
cataloging as in classification. We must 
either go on forever making new and more 
minute subdivisions and arranging the sub- 
ject cards chronologically by the first date in 
the heading, or else we must assign the sub- 
ject by the preponderance of interest of the 
book itself, placing it in that division of the 
subject where most of the narrative or dis- 
cussion falls. The majority of catalogers will 
doubtless prefer the latter method. The spe- 
cific dates may be put in the heading as a 
matter of guidance to the person consulting 
the catalog, but in this case they will be ig- 
nored in filing. 

Rome presents worse difficulties than Egypt. 
In the first place we have to encounter the 
fact that both the city and the state — origin- 
ally one — have a voluminous literature. Con- 
fusion here is disastrous, and yet it is found in 
many catalogs. The city of the seven hills 
must be a subject by itself, reserved for sep- 
arate treatment. Its municipal history is- 
to be kept separate — where possible — 
from the march of the mighty empire,, 
and its monuments must receive treat- 
ment distinct from that of Roman re- 
mains in general. It would seem a very 
good plan in arranging cards to put the coun- 
try heading first, then the city heading, and 
finally the heading for its numerous monu- 
ments and regions. Thus I would have such 
classes of headings as Rome. History. Em- 
pire, Rome (city) .History. Middle Ages, Rome- 
(city). Forum Romanum. If this distinction 
between the city and the state is not made 
in this and other cases, we shall have a 
confusion which will make our catalogs un- 
usable. Moreover, in treating the Roman 
state it will be as necessary to define dates and 
boundaries as in the case of Egypt. I will 
not go on to speak in detail of Greece and 
other countries having a continuous recorded 
history of many centuries. Enough has been 
said to show the need for careful planning in 
giving subjects to works on such countries. 



Still another cause of confusion is closely 
allied to these we have just been considering. 
We have numerous cases in which ancient and 
modern geographical terms do not mean the 
same thing. I have already cited Africa as 
an example. The loose habit of catalogers of 
projecting modern geographical terms into 
the past is most discouraging to students. 
Take, for example, such designations as Ger- 
many and Austria, to cite large regions. Their 
boundaries are not to-day what they were 
even fifty years since, and books describing 
particular regions not formerly in their limits 
and referring wholly to former times should 
not be listed under the modern caption, if suit- 
able ones can be found in the older names. 
This is merely the principle of the specific 
heading applied to geographical problems. 
Again in certain particulars the modern geo- 
graphical term may represent a much smaller 
area than the same term at an earlier date. 
Venice and Genoa are instances in point, and 
many more might easily be cited. A book on 
the Venetian remains in the Greek islands 
hardly deserves a subject, Venlce.Description 
■and travel, although one on the Venetian su- 
premacy in the Levant might well have a sub- 
ject for Venice. Separate geographical enti- 
ties such as islands and peninsulas are more 
easily treated as a rule than other regions, as 
•confusion is less likely to arise in their cases. 

Finally a word should be said in protest 
against subject headings of an indefinite sort 
for frontier or partially settled regions. "The 
West" in American history is one such. The 
phrase "Old Southwest" is another. The ob- 
jection lies rather against the indefinite nature 
of the heading than against its use, if once it 
be well defined. The various regions in Cen- 
tral Africa offer similar difficulties. 

If countries having a continuous recorded 
history present difficult problems to the cata- 
loged so also do subjects of inquiry which 
have given occupation to generations of schol- 
ars. Such studies as political science, eco- 
nomic:, philosophy, mathematics, chemistry, 
botany, medicine, theology, rhetoric, etc., had 
their beginning for our Western world in 
Greece and are live topics to-day. History 
and description of countries show the same 



long line of writers. Now it is obvious that 
seme discrimination is needed in cataloging 
the authors who for twenty odd centuries 
have discussed such important subjects as the 
theory of the state, the art of healing, or the 
science 'of mathematics. The distinctions 
which a printed catalog can show by varieties 
of type and the rapid view of many pages 
with their headings are of course impossible 
in a card catalog. If it is manifestly im- 
proper to compel the student seeking the li- 
brary's best treatise on agriculture to turn over 
numerous cards for editions of Cato and the 
other Scriptores de re rustiea, so also is it un- 
wise to neglect the fact that agriculture and 
all other sciences have their historical side. 
If we are going to give subjects to all our 
books, then Cato must have a subject card 
somewhere under agriculture. Here is where 
the average dictionary catalog breaks down. 
It furnishes under such topics as those we 
have mentioned a dreary array of cards, fre- 
quently many trays of them, through which 
the discouraged student must work to find his 
modern books. Every hundred thousand vol- 
umes added to the library but increases the 
task of consultation. The cards thus become 
what no one wants, an alphabetical list of all 
the writers who have ever treated of a given 
topic. The catalog must either distinguish 
books whose value for the subject is purely 
historical, or it must arrange its cards chro- 
nologically (by author), putting the latest 
works first. In other words, the alphabetical 
principle of sub-arrangement must be aban- 
doned under subjects, or else we must intro- 
duce another division under these subjects 
having a continuous history, i.e., a class of 
books having an historical value only. 

But when does a book begin to have a 
merely historical value ? There's the rub ! It 
is not possible to determine this by chronology 
alone. Can we consider Aristotle of merely 
historical importance in the discussion of poe- 
try or drama, of political science or ethics? 
Most assuredly not. But yet his works on 
physics and natural history are absolutely 
without profit to the average student of to- 
day. No one will say that Kant's writings are 
out of date, and yet his psychology would 



IO 



hardly benefit the modem student in our col- 
lege classes. It is plain that discrimination 
of the highest order must be employed in this 
matter, or else we must adopt some mechan- 
ical arrangement such as the filing of cards 
in chronological order, which after all works 
a sort of rough justice in the matter of rela- 
tive values. Let us be severely honest with 
ourselves here. Who of us can say that the 
trays headed Theology or Law in most of our 
catalogs of libraries of over one hundred 
thousand volumes are practically useful as 
they stand to-day? Who would not rather 
consult a good bibliography and then the au- 
thor catalog for books on those topics than 
attack the direful array of cards in the hope 
by some means of at length securing an inter- 
esting and valuable set of references? 

In formal political history and in economic 
history as well the sources should certainly 
be distinguished from the recent treatises. 
The Germania of Tacitus, for instance, is an 
excellent source for the early history of the 
German Empire, but it is positively foolish 
to list it side by side with the works of Von 
Sybel and Ranke under Germany.History. 
The subhead of "Sources" under history is a 
convenient and valuable limbo for bygone 
works and for collections of documents. 
There is opposition, and sensible opposition, 
however, to using it for merely obsolete treat- 
ises. 

We might adopt some such scheme as this : 
Political Science. Modern works (since 1850) 

and important earlier works. 

Works between 1500 and 1850. 

Mediaeval works. 

Ancient works. 

The divisions suggested here might perhaps 
be the same in all cases, or they might better 
be made to conform to well-recognized di- 
visions in the history of each topic. The al- 
ternative plan is the arrangement of cards by 
date of publication, or by first date of the 
author (to keep editions together). I confess 
I prefer the latter, although I am far from 
wishing to put myself in the position of as- 
suming that the most recent work is necessar- 
ily the best. Still the chances are that it rep- 
resents the most recent stage of investigation. 



Almost every librarian is willing to concede 
this in the matter of bibliographies, acknowl- 
edging that the last to appear should first meet 
the eye of the person consulting the catalog. 
Why not adopt the same principle for every 
topic, as is done in some of our libraries? We 
have, be it remembered, the author catalog at 
hnnd for every one who already knows the 
authors he wants. Why compel the seeker 
after information to wade through another 
author list under each topic? It may be ob- 
served that an annotated catalog would be al- 
most forced to put first its cards for the books 
most highly recommended. 

There are a few practical points which I 
wish to take up before closing this paper. 
First, shall we definitely limit the number of 
subject cards to a given book? In view of 
the immense size to which our card catalogs 
are growing is it wise to say that when the 
library reaches a certain size — say 500,000 
volumes — it will henceforth assume that the 
necessity for making cards for any other than 
the subject of prime interest in a book has 
passed? Shall we take it for granted that 
there will always be other works which cover 
the topics of secondary interest? This view 
is maintained in some libraries whose author- 
ity we all acknowledge. I venture, however, 
in opposition to this idea, to call attention to 
the statistics of our Princeton work published 
in the Library Journal for June, 1906. It was 
there shown that the number of subject cards 
per main entry was 1.47, and per title 1.2, al- 
though no restriction was placed on the cat- 
alogers other than a rigid insistence on the 
specific heading in all cases. This is so nearly 
the result aimed at in the rule that I submit 
that it is a better way of attaining the desired 
restriction of the unduly rapid growth of the 
card catalog than the strict limitation to one 
subject per book. It permits the liberal han- 
dling of a book which treats definitely of sev- 
eral topics, and yet it does not too greatly 
burden the subject catalog. The device of 
using but one subject entry for the various 
editions of a work whose value is chiefly his- 
torical would diminish the per cent, of subject 
to author cards to less than one in our library. 

Again, it may not be amiss to urge that the 



II 



revision and co-ordination of subject head- 
ings should be definitely assigned to one per- 
son. Only thus can continuity and uniform- 
ity of the work be secured. Particularly is 
this provision needed in our largest libraries. 
I urge also as a most vital matter of practice 
that the chief reference librarian should be in 
constant touch with the cataloger who passes 
finally on subject headings. They will work 
together to great mutual advantage. 

Moreover I wish once more to set forth 
the imperative necessity for an official list of 
headings in use in the library. This should 
be kept up to date with the utmost care. Each 
cataloger should have in convenient form a 
list of all subheads previously authorized un- 
der each class of topics, together with defini- 
tions of all these subheads. The list without 
definitions and interpretative notes will be of 
some small value, but with them will be vast- 
ly more useful. It should be kept where 
every cataloger can consult it, preferably in a 
case of trays made to swing on a pivot so that 
it may be consulted without disturbing the 
one at whose elbow it must be placed. The 
American Library Association list and the 
Sydney list, admirable as both sre in their 
own way, will not suffice for any large library. 
An up-to-date list of subjects with adequate 
definitions kept on cards, is an absolute ne- 
cessity in a well-ordered catalog department. 

Is all this worth while? Is the card catalog 



of subjects alphabetically arranged a real ser- 
vice to an institution? Most assuredly it is. 
When once it is made on consistent principles, 
when the student no longer has to fumble 
long trays of cards without headings or 
guides, filled with all the contradictory accu- 
mulations of generations of catalogers, when 
the specific topic stands out prominently, when 
each subject capable of two interpretations is 
sharply defined on a guide card, when con- 
sistency in geographical matters and uniform- 
ity of entry and sub-entry in topics of de- 
batable form have been reached, there is no 
reason why a student should not find the card 
catalog of subjects self-interpreting, inclu- 
sive, useful. It has the all-important merit 
of definiteness and point. It tells any one 
who knows his topic what he can get directly 
on it. It lists both the obsolete book and the 
dead and gone state by themselves. It opens 
up to the reader the contents of the library. 
It is, in short ,an alphabetical subject index 
to the books. If this is not worth while, what 
library effort is? If this be formal, dry-as- 
dust work, why are we working with books 
at all? Our aim as librarians is not merely to 
accumulate books. It is to help the reader to 
the books he wants — or ought to want. In a 
large library the only tool which accomplishes 
this result is the catalog, and of this the sub- 
ject catalog is the part most difficult to make, 
most useful when well made. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

I ll ll 1 1 m 1 1 il :i 




